357SIG proving to be an unbelievable manstopper???

Thread Tools

All the evidence I have seen, that is, reports by people who have shot reasonable numbers of people with both, shows that 9mm ball and .45ACP ball have indestinguishable effectiveness. Strangely enough, that fits well with the oh so often repeated stuff about all pistol rounds are feeble and only use a pistol to fight your way back to your rifle and so on. I think we can assume that the same just about holds true for hollow points in both.

What this means is that the extra diameter and mass (and even some KE) of the .45ACP is compensated for by the extra speed of the 9mm. This suggests that, given the right bullet design and mass, we could find some speed for a .22 which would be just about equivalent to the 9mm and .45ACP as well. Equally, if the .38 Super, bullet mass for bullet mass, is a faster 9mm then we should expect its terminal performance to be better than the 9mm. People who use it for hunting report precisely that! Since the 357SIG is slightly faster again, we should expect it to be slightly better again. As sigcalcatrant says, the 357SIG certainly produces a far more impressive wound than the 9mm and it is hard to imagine that such a result does not also prove to be more effective.

As a side issue, various people have talked about the appearance of wounds created by 9, 40, 357 and 45 as being indistinguishable. This is true of an entry wound for simple reasons. The ballistic pressure wave which forces tissue out of the path of the bullet (this is nothing to do with the remote effects on the brain of such waves and is simple physics) pushes tissue mainly ahead and forwards of the bullet. Only a very high velocity, high energy, bullet which expends most of its energy in the first inch or two, like a varmint rifle bullet, will create enough pressure to force tissue to explode backwards in the vicinity of the entry hole. Because of this all that appears on the outside is a smaller than caliber diameter hole in the skin as the skin is flexible and stretches round the bullet to some extent. To see the actual damage done by a bullet it is necessary to transect the bullet track and look at the damage done to tissue to either side of the track. This is not feasible with a living patient.

Even with the wound transected in this way the 9mm and .45ACP show very similar injury characteristics because bullets do not just make a simple caliber or expanded diameter hole. As sigcalcatrant says, the difference of the 357SIG is clear and significant.

The impact event with it's immediate displacement of material is not easily measured after the fact. I do think evaluation methods are improving with time.

A product called the Bullet Test Tube has made testing of ammunition much easier than the difficult and expensive ballistic gelatin. The manufacturer, Ballistic Technologies, has worked hard to correlate how their wax relates to calibrated ballistic gelatin. The wax, as the product name implies, is contained in a tube, which is then sectioned to examine matter displacement. Prior to sectioning, the company recommends the cavity made by the bullet be filled with water, which can then be measured to give a good idea of how large a cavity the bullet created.

Test Results

One round of Speer 125-grain Gold Dot .357 Sig was fired from a few feet away into a Bullet Test Tube. It took approximately 3.7 ounces of water to fill the cavity made by the bullet, slightly more than double the displacement of a 230-grain .45 ACP hollowpoint fired into an identical test tube on the same day. The recovered Gold Dot bullet measured approximately 1/2" wide and had expanded symmetrically. It weighed 124.3 grains, weighed on a digital scale by Frankford Arsenal.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_10_54/ai_n28027452/

The impact event with it's immediate displacement of material is not easily measured after the fact. I do think evaluation methods are improving with time.

Click to expand...

The Bullet Test Tube does not accurately simulate tissue or gel. That is why there is a conversion-factor for figuring penetration of bullets shot into it. We might as well go back to shooting duxseal or lumps of clay, which it is more like than gel in consistancy, and which seem to favor higher velocity rounds.

Would you be willing to elaborate? I doubt I'm the only one who would like to hear more on how you arrived at that conclusion.

Click to expand...

I am not trying to answer for dadeglocks but my choice of G33 is simple enough.

My criteria are based on the greatest stopping power and magazine capacity for a concealable size. Different circumstances put different limits on what can be concealed for different individuals at different times and there is, of course, a conflict between magazine capacity and stopping power. By stopping power I mean the lowest average number of shots or shortest time to effective incapacitation, and that is more stuff we can't put any precision to. On top of that, I want recoil levels that I can handles without developing a flinch but I am prepared to practice with a lesser loading or calibler in the same type of pistol to get it.

So, for situation where I could carry a full service size pistol, there is no competititon for the 10mm in G20. It is light, relatively small and 15 shots times 10mm power is a better stopping power and capacity compromise than can be found in any other similar size pistol and recoil is no problem.

Next down in size is more difficult because it is a close race between the 10mm G29 and the 357SIG G32. The G32 has less stopping power but more rounds. It is thinner and only a smidgeon taller. 30oz fully loaded with 13 rounds per magazine versus 33oz with 10 rounds just tips it to the G32 for me but I would be happy with either. (2 more rounds in 9mm doesn't do it for me!)

Next down is the G33. Again there is nothing to compete with it for power in that size package. 9 shot magazine and 26.6oz with full magazine in a very concealable but not pocket carry size. This is about as light as I want to go for .40 S&W or 357SIG recoil levels. I can shoot the G33 quite a lot at a time but if I had the opportunity to fire 1000s of rounds a week I would put a 9mm conversion barrel into it for the majority of that. Lone Wolf and others do conversion barrels and the conversion is usually reliable with no more than the barrel and 9mm magazines.

Next down takes us to 9mm in KelTec PF-9, Kahr PM9 or Rohrbaugh in ascending cost. I have the KT and I am quite impressed with it. The KT is only marginally pocketable, but the Rohrbaugh definitely is. In this weight and size pistol I think .40 recoil is too much and 357SIG is not available even if I wanted it.

Then we drop down to the .380 in about 11 to 14oz loaded weight. I have the KT P3AT, which is the lightest option, and I am impressed with that one too, but if I was buying again I woul go for the Diamondback which is just a little heavier. It has the same overall size, but the grip length is better because of the striker firing mechanism. if reports are to be believed it is nicer to shoot as well.

I can't see any point in going lower than that. The KT P32 is nice but for only another 1.5 oz loaded ad the same overall size, the P3AT just has so much more power. The KTs are so small and light that there is no point at all in going to a .25 auto.

All is compromise, but within the compromise graph I think the G33 stands out as the best in class.

By stopping power I mean the lowest average number of shots or shortest time to effective incapacitation...

Click to expand...

And that's why I choose 10mm in combination with a G29. I'm not licensed to conceal carry yet, so the G29 works fine for me to open carry. Once I can conceal carry it will still work well most of the time.

One might ask why I just don't carry a G20 now. It's because I simply prefer a longer aftermarket barrel in the G29 without going to a larger platform overall. Plus I have 15 round G20 mags that fit right into my G29 when I choose to carry with 15 round capacity.

My criteria are based on the greatest stopping power and magazine capacity for a concealable size.

Next down in size is more difficult because it is a close race between the 10mm G29 and the 357SIG G32.

Next down is the G33. Again there is nothing to compete with it for power in that size package. 9 shot magazine and 26.6oz with full magazine in a very concealable but not pocket carry size.

Click to expand...

English,

I have both G29 & G33 that I CCW. In my personal experience, I don't really perceive a significant difference between either for CCW. For me, both are equally concealable carried at 4:00 PM in a TT gunleather IWB holster. I extended the G##'s capacity with a +2 Pearce grip extender. The G33 is slightly thinner and shorter, but (for me personally) not a noticable difference with the G29.

The Bullet Test Tube does not accurately simulate tissue or gel. That is why there is a conversion-factor for figuring penetration of bullets shot into it. We might as well go back to shooting duxseal or lumps of clay, which it is more like than gel in consistancy, and which seem to favor higher velocity rounds.

Click to expand...

Well Bullet Test Tube may or may not be equivalent to calibrated gel; I'll let the experts decide that. At any rate it is a neutral medium regardless of the caliber tested as well as being a uniform consistency.

So from the article I linked, why did the 125-grain .357sig Gold Dot JHP displace twice the material as the 230-grain .45ACP JHP? And if you know the conversion factor what's the equivalent displacement and penetration numbers for both calibers in calibrated gel?

What I think is interesting is a medium whereby the "snapshot" of total wound volume can be approximately measured. In many test mediums the elasticity of the material makes it difficult or impossible to measure. Leaving aside the problem(s) of trying to closely duplicate the human anatomy Bullet Test Tube seems to me to be one simple way to make a limited but valid comparison between caliber/bullet wound displacement volumes.

You can convert a G23 or G32 to a 9mm with the above barrel. You do need 9mm mags and an extractor would help as well but lots of people shoot 9mm out of 23/32's with nothing more that a barrel and mag.

I have both G29 & G33 that I CCW. In my personal experience, I don't really perceive a significant difference between either for CCW. For me, both are equally concealable carried at 4:00 PM in a TT gunleather IWB holster. I extended the G##'s capacity with a +2 Pearce grip extender. The G33 is slightly thinner and shorter, but (for me personally) not a noticable difference with the G29.

Perhaps the most significant differences are the half inch of length and just over a quarter inch of height between the 29 and 33, and the just over half an inch of height of the 32 over the 29. Depending on where the pistol is carried, these differences can mean little or a lot. Under a dress shirt in a belly band type holster appendix position I think the 33 would be a lot easier to keep concealed and would be more comfortable. In a 4 O'clock IWB holster the 32 could be as easy as the 29. Does that group the 29 with the 32 or the 33? I think there is no right answer and that it all depends on the person and the circumstances!

Well Bullet Test Tube may or may not be equivalent to calibrated gel; I'll let the experts decide that. The company themselves says it's not equivalent, hence a conversion factor. At any rate it is a neutral medium regardless of the caliber tested as well as being a uniform consistency.

So from the article I linked, why did the 125-grain .357sig Gold Dot JHP displace twice the material as the 230-grain .45ACP JHP? Because the material is of the consistancy that it is. It's like shooting a .22 at some mud. It's going to make a larger hole than a .45 because it's moving faster.And if you know the conversion factor what's the equivalent displacement and penetration numbers for both calibers in calibrated gel? There is no equivalent for displacement. It's like shooting a lump of clay, more velocity=more permenant cavity in this kind of medium. The penetration conversion should be on the website, and is certainly included with the product. I don't remember what it was.

What I think is interesting is a medium whereby the "snapshot" of total wound volume can be approximately measured. In many test mediums the elasticity of the material makes it difficult or impossible to measure. TC is not total wound volume. The bullet test-tube gives a false-sense of permanent wound volume BECAUSE it is not elastic. Leaving aside the problem(s) of trying to closely duplicate the human anatomy Bullet Test Tube seems to me to be one simple way to make a limited but valid comparison between caliber/bullet wound displacement volumes. Only if you care about TC, and even then we know that a .45's TC is roughly equivalent to the 357SIG's from numerous photos of dyed gel we can easily google. Ergo, the "bullet test tube" is good for...nothing other than calculating penetration depth, in my opinion. If you have some wet clay somewhere on your property it's about as informative with regards to wound-volume.

Perhaps the most significant differences are the half inch of length and just over a quarter inch of height between the 29 and 33, and the just over half an inch of height of the 32 over the 29. Depending on where the pistol is carried, these differences can mean little or a lot. Under a dress shirt in a belly band type holster appendix position I think the 33 would be a lot easier to keep concealed and would be more comfortable. In a 4 O'clock IWB holster the 32 could be as easy as the 29. Does that group the 29 with the 32 or the 33? I think there is no right answer and that it all depends on the person and the circumstances!

And the "expert" finds fault because the medium doesn't duplicate human tissue. I'd say to the expert, "Calibrated gel doesn't duplicate living tissue either", but it does come close to approximating human tissue's consistency.

Regardless, the Bullet Tube material is a neutral medium the same way that calibrated gel is a neutral medium. Your "expert" has nothing to add, really.

You mentioned a conversion equation in your previous post; can you tell us what that is? I'm not a math whiz but I's sure there are others who can figure the ratios.

And the "expert" finds fault because the medium doesn't duplicate human tissue. I'd say to the expert, "Calibrated gel doesn't duplicate living tissue either", but it does come close to approximating human tissue's consistency. Yes, but the bullet-test tube doesn't come close, and this is what the company has to say about how it compares to animal tissue: "The short answer is we do not know and it really does not matter. " There have been studies done of OIS's on expansion and penetration depth that show a VERY good correlation between gel and humans, at least. I will stick with gel.

Regardless, the Bullet Tube material is a neutral medium the same way that calibrated gel is a neutral medium. Your "expert" has nothing to add, really. So is clay, and shooting clay tells me that a .22 CCI Stinger has much larger wound volume than a .45 JHP. See how this is flawed?

You mentioned a conversion equation in your previous post; can you tell us what that is? I'm not a math whiz but I's sure there are others who can figure the ratios.Yes, it's 1.34. Multiply penetration by 1.34 to get a rough estimate of how far the bullet would penetrate in gelatin according to the company that produces this product.

Click to expand...

I suppose I could shoot watermellons, lumps of clay, or bullet test tubes. They are all about as meaningful as one another. However, I will stick with what the gel-tests are telling us. I would like the closest thing to flesh as possible.

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more. As our membership continues to grow we look forward to reading your stories and learning from your experiences. Membership is free and we welcome all types of shooters, whether you're a novice or a pro. Come for the info, stay and make some friends..